RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Some of those extra rolls will be successes and if the DM is doing his job, those successes will be described in a way that makes it a lucky success. Halflings are in fact lucky in the game world due to the racial ability unless the DM messes it up, and if he does it isn't the fault of the game or race.

So, you are agreeing with me. Halflings are no luckier than any other race, unless the DM goes out of their way to make them luckier. You can say that not doing that is a failure on the DMs part and they should feel bad, but I don't really notice the need for the DM to narrate my tiefling's devilish heritage, or my Goliaths massive size, or my gnome's ability to talk to animals. So... if only halflings have a trait that requires the DM to twist the narrative to support it... might that be a bad design on the part of the race? Might it then be fair to say that, unless the DM is enforcing it narratively, it doesn't really exist, and therefore is a bad way to describe the race?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've always liked this one:

WebPicture.png
I use this portrait for an NPC adventurer in my campaign, who would right now be running with a party were that party not still awaiting a return to in-person play.

He can be pretty much summed up in two words: "professional troublemaker", which matches that wonderful smirk on his face in the picture.
 

And all of these are monsters which should never have been made PC-playable in any edition.

Making everything and the kitchen sink PC-playable is what's pushing the Hobbit to the sidelines, as there's so many other similar-ish species competing for the same niche-resources.
Well that's like your opinion man.

The problem is not that all these races were made playable. IT was that every race was not not designed for the same level of fantasy.

Halfling was designed for a low fantasy , low magic, humanocentric LOTR-clone world. The second you play anything else, it gets outshined. That's the whole point of the thread. Integrating halflings in other types of settings.
 

Halflings as a race are not stealthy. They are nimble. The lightfoot subrace is stealthy, and they have a racial stealth ability that humans and warforged do not have.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Again.

Now, does that lightfoot subrace have the additional ability to hide anywhere? A general bonus to stealth? No. They have a bonus to hide in crowds or behind other people. So they are specifically more stealthy in specific situations.

Following up, does a halfling paladin in full plate armor tend to be sneakier than a Dragonborn rogue with expertise in stealth? No. So, it is fairly accurate to say that class and class abilities are a better measure of stealth than racial abilities. Sure, the paladin can try and hide behind the dragonborn... but making the attempt isn't the same as succeeding.

So, calling all halflings particularly stealthy, is a bad descriptor, because at best it only describes 1/6th of all halflings, and class matters far more than race when it comes to this aspect of the character.
 

Making everything and the kitchen sink PC-playable is what's pushing the Hobbit to the sidelines, as there's so many other similar-ish species competing for the same niche-resources.
This idea that races require niches that are some sort of limited resources is bizarre to me. Wanting races to be well-integrated into the campaign setting I can understand. But why do some people treat this integration as a zero-sum game? As long as the DM has the desire to do so, what’s wrong with them integrating any and every race they please into their setting?
 

So a halfling will never be present when the King of a Nation is assassinated and the party set-up as the murderers? Because, that is something truly catastrophic happening, so the DM will always make sure that the halfling is known to be innocent, right?
She was talking about catastrophe hitting the halflings, not a halfling being present when some other king is affected by one.
Oh, wait no. They just re-roll 1's. Which, per RAW are no worse than rolling a 2. Sure, players may give themselves crit fails, but players also have their characters quote Monty Python, doesn't mean it exists in the game world. So, again, narratively, the halfling player is no luckier than any other player. Unless the DM narrates and explicitly goes out of their way to be luckier than normal.
A 1 is always worse by RAW for non-halflings than a 2, because at a minimum you are 1 less likely to succeed at your goal. For a halfling a 1 is better than a 2 because you can re-roll and are unlikely to get an equally bad result. 95% of the time it will be better, and 90% of the time it will be better than a 2.

So again, narratively, halflings are luckier than other races. The DM doesn't have to go out of his way to narrate them to be luckier. That's the status quo. He has to go out of his way to not narrate them correctly in order for them not to be luckier in the fiction.
Like this, right here. The DM has to enforce the luck, or it doesn't actually matter. Sure, I as the player can insist on events being particularly lucky... but I can do that with any character? And what do I do if the DM tells me to stop? Is my entire race concept now under threat?
That is wrong. The DM may go out of his way to make them even luckier in the fiction than the dice show, but without that extra oomph to luck they are still luckier in the fiction. You cannot do that with any character. Their inherent luck that is narrated by the DM in good faith is something no other race gets.
Right, so does anyone who succumb to the frightened condition lose the right to call themselves brave? Again, my ranger may be so scared his hands are shaking, but he is still shooting the dragon. Is that not bravery? And if that is bravery, then my ranger is also brave. So, why describe halflings as "the race that is brave" when every single adventurer is brave?
Again, it's a racial trait that makes them braver than normal, not fearless. So no, missing a save doesn't cause them to lose the right to call themselves brave. Heck, since it's forced fear and not cowardice, a failed save doesn't do that to anyone.
 

Well that's like your opinion man.

The problem is not that all these races were made playable. IT was that every race was not not designed for the same level of fantasy.

Halfling was designed for a low fantasy , low magic, humanocentric LOTR-clone world. The second you play anything else, it gets outshined. That's the whole point of the thread. Integrating halflings in other types of settings.
I don’t get this either. What’s wrong with halflings being relatively mundane? Not every race needs to be equally fantastical. It’s ok to have some normies. Some people like to play normies.
 

So, the ranger who is shaking and terrified out of his mind while fighting the dragon, but is still fighting the dragon, is not brave. Because he doesn't have a mechanic that allows him to be brave.
Nobody has said that, and it's not relevant in any case. The ranger being brave doesn't make the ranger's race as a whole braver than other races. Unless the ranger is a halfling anyway.
Sure, we can say that halflings are "more likely to be brave" but again... 99% of adventurers are brave, so your halfling adventurer being brave is meaningless. So is everyone else who is eager to rush into the dragon's lair, kill it, and steal its hoard.
It's not meaningless. It's part of the character's racial identity and statistically the halfling will succeed at more fear saves than the other races, so will over time be braver.
 
Last edited:

So, you are agreeing with me. Halflings are no luckier than any other race, unless the DM goes out of their way to make them luckier. You can say that not doing that is a failure on the DMs part and they should feel bad, but I don't really notice the need for the DM to narrate my tiefling's devilish heritage, or my Goliaths massive size, or my gnome's ability to talk to animals. So... if only halflings have a trait that requires the DM to twist the narrative to support it... might that be a bad design on the part of the race? Might it then be fair to say that, unless the DM is enforcing it narratively, it doesn't really exist, and therefore is a bad way to describe the race?
No. No that wasn't agreement. I proved that they are in fact luckier no matter what, and that luck will be in the fiction as well unless the DM is DMing in bad faith and refuses to narrate their luck as luck. If you have such a bad faith DM, then the halfling is just luckier with the rolls.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top